Delhi

New Delhi

CC/280/2018

MR. RAJINDER PARKASH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOTC TRAVEL LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.280/2018                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

               Mr. Rajinder Parkash Gupta,

             Flat No.1A, Health Cottage,

             Waverly Mussoorie.

 

            Communication Address:

 

         C-II/13, Tilak Lane, Delhi-110001.

         Through his Attorney

          Sh. S.D. Pathak,

          S/o Sh. B.N. Pathak,

          C-70, A, Sitapuri Part-1, Delhi-45.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.    SOTC Travel Ltd.,

B-33, 1^st Floor, Kuthiala Building,

Inner Circle, C.P. Delhi,

Delhi-110001(Through its Manager/Authorized Representative)

 

2.   Iqbal Khalid,

Senior Executive, Retail Service-orth India

SOTC Travel Ltd.,

B-33, 1^st Floor, Kuthiala Building,

Inner Circle, C.P. Delhi,

           Delhi-01

                                                                                                                                                 ….......OPPOSITE PARTIES

    

​ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

      The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that Sh. Rajinder Prakash Gupta, complainant is a senior citizen and being a resident of Mussoorie, he is unable to attend the Forum on every date.  The instant complaint was filed through his attorney Sh. SD Pathak.

 

2.    Facts of the case as pleaded in the complaint are that SOTC Travel Ltd. makes arrangement for tours and travels abroad.  Complainant wanted to visit U.S.A. on a tour package.  Accordingly, in the first week of January 2018 complainant had telephonic conversation with OPs officials.  He informed OP officials that he is also interested in Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip and asked the cost of total package including cost of Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip.  Vide its e-mail dated 09/01/2018 at 12:21 PM, OP informed the complainant that total U.S.A. package cost was Rs. 2,32,500/- per adult.  Since cost of Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip was not mentioned in the said mail, based on the query of the complainant OP included the cost of Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip vide e-mail dated 12/03/2018 at 15:40:54 IST and accordingly the cost was enhanced from Rs. 2,32,500/- to Rs. 2,44,000/-.  Complainant vide its e-mail dated 14/03/2018 at 6:59 PM agreed to pay Rs.2,44,000/- which included the cost of Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip.  He paid Rs. 2,44,000/- to OP.

 

3.    Complainant has pleaded that on receipt of full payment of Rs. 2,44,000/-, OP started harassing him.  He was informed by OP2 that flight for U.S.A. was booked for early morning of 12/05/2018 and he had to leave for IGI Airport on the night of 11/05/2018.  He informed OP2 that he is a resident of Mussoorie and it will take time for him to come to Delhi and therefore he should be given air tickets, hotel vouchers etc. well in advance.  It is pleaded that OP2 did not give satisfactory reply on telephone nor did he take telephone calls of the complainant.  Complainant sent to OP2 an e-mail on 09/05/2018 at 8:12 PM  expressing his tension and worry for having not received air tickets, hotel vouchers etc. till 09/05/2018.  It is further pleaded that complainant waited for air tickets, hotel vouchers etc. the whole day of 10/05/2018.  It is stated that OP2 vide e-mail dated 09/05/2018 at 7: 20 PM that he will send the air tickets shortly but complainant did not receive the air tickets.  Further it is pleaded that complainant was quite worried because his flight to New York was on the next day and the unexplained delay on the part of OPs to give him air tickets was causing him worry.  He had to approach Police Station Connaught Police with a complaint for registration of a case of cheating and it was only on the intervention of Officer In-charge Police Station Connaught Place that complainant got the air tickets on 10/05/2018 late in the evening i.e. just one day prior to departure of his flight to U.S.A.

4.    Further it is pleaded that his harassment did not stop even after he reached U.S.A.  It is submitted that as per contract concluded between the parties, complainant paid full amount of Rs.2,44,000/- inclusive of price of Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip.  When complainant reached for Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip, Sh. Sanjeev Pethe, Tour Manager of OPs at U.S.A., said that complainant could not do Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip as he did not have information to that effect from OP.  Complainant vide his e-mail dated 14/05/2018 requested OPs to mail the said voucher to Sh. Sanjeev Pethe urgently but OPs did not respond to the said mail of the complainant.  Complainant sent another e-mail dated 15/05/5018 to Sh. Vishal Suri, Managing Director of OP requesting him to inform Sh. Sanjeev Pethe OP’s Tour Manager at U.S.A. to arrange Helicopter ride of the complainant over Las Vegas strip.  It is pleaded that he did not receive any response even to this e-mail and consequently he was deprived of the helicopter ride.

5.      Complainant has alleged that by these acts OPs caused him mental and physical agony.  It is pleaded that he sent legal notice dated 30/05/2018 to OPs which was duly served on them and that OPs did not bother to reply to the said legal notice. 

6.    Alleging deficiency in services, complainant has claimed Rs. 11,500/- towards cost of Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony and financial loss with interest @ 18% from the date of receipt of the amount of tour package to the date of payment and Rs. 55,000/- as litigation expenses.

7.    Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs who appeared and filed reply.  “OP is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is an internationally renowned travel and holiday organising Company and is inter-alia engaged in the business of arranging domestic and international tours and providing foreign exchange and other travel related services to its customers.”  OP has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum stating that complainant is not the resident of Delhi and no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  It is pleaded that OP vide its e-mail dated 09/01/2018 informed the complainant that the tour cost would be Rs. 2,32,500/- per adult and that since the cost of Helicopter ride was included, OP sent the cost of tour package after included the cost of Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip vide e-mail dated 12/03/2018 according to which the cost was enhanced from Rs. 2,32,500/- to Rs. 2,44,000/- and the same was paid by the complainant.  It is pleaded that OP informed the complainant that since Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip was not a part of the original tour cost, complainant was advised to pay the same directly at Las Vegas to the service provider as the Helicopter ride is not owned/operated/controlled by OP and in case of non-availability OP would not be held responsible for the same.

8.    Complainant filed rejoinder reiterating his claim therein and the defence of the OPs has made out in the reply.

9.    Attorney of complainant, Sh. S.D. Pathak, adduced evidence by way of affidavit as Exhibit-CW/1.  Sh. Dinesh Bindoor, led evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OPs.  Parties have filed written arguments.  We have heard both sides.

10.  OP has challenged territorial jurisdiction of this forum to adjudicate this matter.  It is pleaded that complainant is a resident of Mussoorie and no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

11.  It is not in dispute that complainant made a payment of total package of Rs.2,44,000/- to OP at B-33, First Floor, Kauthilya Building, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, Delhi.  It is so pleaded in Para 5 of the complaint. OP has not denied the same in corresponding Para 5 of its reply.  Copy of the receipt is provided as Exhibit CW 1/3.

      Further, various e-mails were exchanged between complainant and OP2 at its CP office.  Complainant’s e-mail to OP2 dated 09/05/2018 at 18:12 pm which is Exhibit CW 1/7, OP2 sent e-mail dated 09/05/2018.  When the complainant did not receive his air tickets, hotel vouchers etc. and contacted OP2, OP2 vide its e-mail dated 09/05/2018 at 7.20 p.m. said that he would send the air tickets shortly.

      Accordingly, this forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.

12.  Complainant has pleaded that once total package cost was paid to the OPs, they started harassing him.  It is stated that OP was made aware that complainant was a resident of Mussoorie and it will take time for him to come to Delhi Airport and yet he was not given air tickets, hotel vouchers, etc. well in advance. 

13.  Paras 9 to 12 of the complaint deal with this part of cause of action.  It is pleaded in Para 9 of the complaint that complainant was informed by OP2 that flight for U.S.A. was booked for early morning of 12/05/2018 and he had to leave for IGI Airport on the night of 11/05/2018.  Complainant informed OP2 that he was a resident of Mussoorie and, therefore, he should be given air tickets, hotel vouchers etc. in advance.  OP did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant over telephone nor did he take telephone calls of the complainant

      There is no rebuttal of these allegations in Para 9 of the reply.

14.  Further, it is pleaded by the complainant in Para 10 of the complaint that vide his e-mail dated 09/05/2018 (Exhibit CW 1/7), he had written

“I have called you many times for the travelling tickets and hotel vouchers but you have not sent the same.  How can we leave on 11/05/2018?  The unexplained delay on your part is causing me tension and worry.  Please send the travelling tickets and hotel voucher by tomorrow morning.” 

 

15.  Further, it is pleaded in Para 11 of the complaint that the complainant waited for air tickets on 10/05/2018 the whole day.  He tried to contact OP2 telephonically also but he did not take Complainant’s telephone calls.  OP2 simply wrote vide his e-mail dated 09/05/2018 at 7: 20 PM that that he will send air tickets shortly.  But he did not send the air tickets. 

16.  OP in corresponding Paras of their reply have not rebutted the aforesaid allegations.  It is not denied that OPs were aware of the fact that complainant is a resident of Mussoorie and, therefore, would take time to reach Delhi Airport for USA. It is not denied that till late evening of 10.05.2018, they did not provide him air tickets, hotel vouchers etc.  They did not deny that there was an unexplained delay on their part in providing him air tickets.  They have not disputed that complainant had expressed his worry and anguish vide his e-mail dated 09.05.2018.  Having not denied that complainant was trying to reach OP2 but he did not take his calls. 

17.  The only defence taken by OPs in this regard is that due to late payment of tour cost by the complainant, the delay in providing air ticket, hotel vouchers, etc. occurred.  

      The said defence is not substantiated by OPs by any document.

18.  Complainant vide his e-mail dated 09/05/2018, clearly informed OP2 that he had called him many times for travelling tickets and hotel vouchers and further that how could he leave on 11/05/2018 when till 09/05/2018, he was not provided air tickets.  In response, OP2 simply wrote vide e-mail dated 09/05/2018 that he would send the tickets shortly.  Nowhere OP2 wrote that delay was caused on account of late payment of tour cost by the complainant. 

19.  It is complainant’s case that he made the payment as and when demanded by OPs.  If there was delay in making payment of the tour cost, OPs should have refused to accept the balance payment and cancelled the tour of the complainant. 

20.  It is pleaded in Para 12 of the complaint that the complainant was quite worried because his flight to New York was on 11/05/2018 and till late evening of 10/05/2018, he  did not get air tickets from OPs.  It is further stated that since there was delay on the part of the OPs to give him air tickets, it was shocking and caused him worry.  He had to approach Police Station Connaught Police with a complaint for registration of a case of cheating and it was only on the intervention of Officer In-charge Police Station Connaught Place that complainant got the air tickets on 10/05/2018 late in the evening i.e. just one day prior to departure of his flight to U.S.A.   These allegations are not denied by OPs in corresponding Para 12 of their reply. 

21.  It is not denied that air tickets and vouchers of the hotels were given to the complainant late in the evening of 10/05/2018.  It is simply pleaded that OPs could not be held liable for delay as the same occurred due to delay on the part of the complainant in making the balance payment of the tour cost.  As discussed earlier, OPs have not placed even a single document on record to substantiate their sole defence that air tickets were delayed due to alleged delay on the part of the complainant in making the balance payment of tour cost.  The complainant was never informed that there was any delay in making the payment of the tour cost. 

22.  It is, therefore, clear that the complainant suffered immensely on account of OPs to provide air tickets. Complainant was frantically trying to contact OP2 on telephone but his telephonic calls were not taken. 

23.  He sent an e-mail dated 09/05/2018 (Exhibit CW 1/7) to OPs in this regard.  OP-2 promised to send the air tickers shortly and no reason is described how the air tickets were delayed.  It is not disputed that complainant had approached Police Station Connaught Police with a complaint for registration of a case of cheating and it was only on the intervention of Officer In-charge Police Station Connaught Place that complainant got the air tickets on 10/05/2018 late in the evening i.e. just one day prior to departure of his flight to U.S.A.

24.    It is further pleaded by the complainant that harassment did not stop here and that he suffered immense anguish over denial of Helicopter Ride to him in Las Vegas by OPs despite OPs having accepted final payment for the same.

 

25.    In Para 13 of the affidavit of Dinesh Bindoor, witness of OP, it is clearly deposed that Rs.2,32,500/- was the original cost of USA tour package and after discussion with the complainant OPs included the cost of Helicopter ride.  Hence, as per testimony of the witness of OP, OPs then sent revised quotation of Rs. 2,44,000/- including the cost of Helicopter ride which was duly paid by the complainant.

 

26.    Paras 13 to 16 of the complaint deal with this part of cause of action regarding denial of helicopter ride to the complainant causing him irretrievable loss.  From Para 13 to 16, complainant has pleaded that harassment did not stop even when he reached USA.  It is stated that Sh. Sanjeev Pethe, OP’s Tour Manager at U.S.A. to arrange Helicopter ride of the complainant over Las Vegas strip.  It is pleaded that he did not receive any response even to this e-mail and consequently he was deprived of the helicopter ride.  He had explained to OP2 at the very beginning that it was his dream to experience Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip and he had explained to OP2 at the very beginning that he wanted the same and therefore cost of the same was included in the U.S.A. tour package given to him.  It is further pleaded that vide his e-mail dated 14/05/2018, he informed OPs that he discussed his helicopter ride with Sh. Sanjeev Pethe.  He requested OPs to talk to Sh. Sanjeev Pethe.  But nothing happened.  Another mail was sent to Sh. Vishal Suri, Managing Director of OP on behalf of the complainant on 15/05/2018 requesting him to inform Sh. Sanjeev Pethe OPs Tour Manager at U.S.A. to arrange Helicopter ride of the complainant over Las Vegas strip.  Complainant did not receive any response even to this e-mail & consequently the complainant was deprived of the helicopter ride.

        Submission made in Paras 13 to 16 of the complaint are not denied by the OPs in their reply.   

 

27.    The only defence of the OPs is that they advised the complainant to make payment to the service provider at Las Vegas.  OPs have claimed in their reply that it is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is an internationally renowned travel and holiday organising Company and is inter-alia engaged in the business of arranging domestic and international tours and providing foreign exchange and other travel related services to its customers.  Such a big company did not bother to place on record even a single document to substantiate its claim that it ever advised the complainant to make payment of the cost of helicopter ride at Las Vegas.  In fact, OPs did not act as per their own alleged advice.  They accepted the cost of helicopter ride from the complainant at Delhi thereby promising the complainant that they would provide helicopter ride to the complainant at USA.  There is no document of OPs on record that they ever informed the complainant that they will not be able to arrange the helicopter ride for any reason whatsoever.  OPs have not even explained as to how they have accepted the payment of helicopter ride if they had no control over it, as they pleaded in Para 6 Page 5 of their reply.  It is also relevant to note that booking of the helicopter ride was neither cancelled nor the cost of the same was refunded to the complainant.  It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that had the complainant been informed that helicopter was not possible, he would not have availed the tour package because from day 1, he made it clear to OPs that it was his dream to experience Helicopter ride over Las Vegas strip which was confirmed by the OPs by adding the cost of helicopter ride in the total package cost.  OPs have not shown any document vide which they informed the complainant that since there was delay in making the payment, he could not have the helicopter ride. 

 

28.    While in USA, complainant sent two e-mails dated 14/05/2018 and 15/05/2018 requesting OPs to arrange the helicopter ride but OPs did not bother to reply to these e-mails and accordingly the complainant was deprived of the helicopter ride.  OPs in Para 15 and 16 of their reply have not disputed these e-mails dated 14/05/2018 and 15/05/2018.  They have not given any reasons as to why they did not reply the same.  It is further not stated as to why the helicopter ride was not arranged.  If there was a delay in making the payment of the tour cost, OPs should have refused to accept the balance payment and cancelled the tour of the complainant.   It is not explained as to why OPs accepted additional cost of helicopter ride from the complainant.  It is submitted by the complainant that he is now 69 years old and cannot go to USA again and that by their mala fide failure to provide him helicopter ride, OPs have caused him irretrievable loss.

 

29.    Even at the cost of repetition, it is worth mentioning that the sole defence of OPs is that the complainant was not provided air tickets on time and also the helicopter ride because there was delay in making the balance payment by him and further that he was advised to make the payment directly to the service provider at USA.  As discussed above, OP2 which is a huge company as is claimed by them did not bother to place on record even a single document to substantiate either alleged delay in making the payment of the tour package or that the complainant was ever advised to book helicopter ride at USA and not with the OPs.  Complainant was, therefore, caused mental agony and financial loss in being not provided air tickets on time and which he was provided only when he approached police station, Connaught place with a case for cheating against OPs and further being deprived of promised helicopter ride at USA for which he had paid additional cost. 

30.    In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that non- providing of air tickets of on time as well as of helicopter ride despite receiving the payment amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP-1.  We therefore hold OP-1 guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11,500/- (cost of the helicopter ride) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization,
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards compensation on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him as the complainant is senior citizen of 69 years.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of  Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. 

 

The above said amount shall be paid within 30 days from today failing which 9% interest per annum shall be payable from the date of order till the date of payment.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 02/09/2019.

.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                   PRESIDENT

                              (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                            (H M VYAS)

                                                     MEMBER                                                   MEMBER